In the spring of 2000, Julie Catelano brought allegations of discrimination within
the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) to light.  As word slowly trickled across the
campus, both the activist and the queer communities began to take head of these
warnings and look deeper into the TCF.  The case seemed straightforward enough: a
member of TCF, Julie Catelano, had asked to be a senior leader, the group's highest
leadership position, and the advisor of the group, Jodi Chang, told her that she was not
allowed to even be considered for the job because of her sexual orientation.  Julie had
been an active member within the group for a number of years and had held lower
leadership positions.  The difference now was that she was no longer praying to become
straight (which Jodi and the senior leaders had urged her to do).  This practice was
putting undue stress on her mind and was quickly becoming too much to bear.  Also,
Julie had come to the realization that being queer was an innate part of her being.
After hearing that TCF was holding a meeting on the evangelical view of
homosexuality, three members of the Tufts Coalition for Social Justice and
Nonviolence-Adam, Lou, and Shari-decided to attend.  The meeting was held in TCF’s
house on Sawyer Avenue.  During the meeting, a women from the Harvard chapter of
InterVarsity (the national group TCF is affiliated with) spoke.  The coalition members in
attendance were shocked by what they heard as the speaker justified the subjugation of
homosexuals through her own tale of personal sexual struggles.  To the non-TCF
members in the room, it became quite clear that the speaker was actually a lesbian who
had repressed those feelings so deeply within her own self-hatred that she was unable to
critically look at her life.  She advocated that through prayer a person can become
straight (a practice most psychologists say is gravely dangerous).  Furthermore, she spoke
at length on homosexual acts as a sin, quoting bible passages and using her own life as
evidence.
Following the meeting the coalition members were feeling sorry for the speaker
as well as a great urge to help Julie in any way possible.  There was; however, a fine line
that had to be tread between acting as the thought police and protecting Julie’s civil
rights as a human being.  There was a struggle between a group’s right to hold beliefs of
their choosing, and their accountability for their actions.  In other words, the coalition
members realized that no matter how much they disagreed with TCF’s archaic stance on
homosexuality, they could not attack the TCF members for their identity as evangelical
Christians.  They could only attack the fact that the TCF patently discriminated against a
queer student who was supposed to be protected by the university’s non-discrimination
policy.
Adam called a meeting for the following night in the lounge of Metcalf hall that
was attended by about 35 people; including the senior leaders from TCF, Julie, members
of the queer community, members of the activist community, and one associate chaplain.
Although, there was some vocal criticism on the possibly sensationalistic way that the
invitation to the meeting was worded, there was a great deal of very positive dialogue
that followed.  Everyone present was given a crash course in exactly what had happened
to Julie and the groundwork of the struggle to ensure the protection of the queer
community was laid down.  In fact, many of the participants of the forum would later
become members of Tufts Students Against Discrimination (TSAD)-the coalition group
that worked during the fall 2000 semester to ensure that the non-discrimination policy
was upheld.
Towards the end of the year, the Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) met
in an emergency meeting and immediately de-recognized TCF based on their blatant
violation of the non-discrimination policy.  This marked the beginning of the intense
campaign by the religious right to pressure the administration into stepping in on behalf
of the TCF.  This pressure included massive phone calls, e-mails, and letters being sent
daily to the president’s office as well as threats from lawyers and allegations of
anti-Christian bias.  Right leaning Libertarian groups who accused the University of
acting as thought police backed the well-organized coalition of religious fanatics.  While
the religious right was veiling their homophobia by attacking the university on
anti-Christian grounds, the Libertarians took this as an opportunity to attack the very
existence of non-discrimination policies, which they feel limit free association.
During the summer, with the students who supported the TCUJ’s decision safely
at home, the University quickly caved to the religious right’s pressure.   The
student-faculty Committee on Student Life (CSL), which acts as the appellate body to the
TCUJ, ordered the re-recognition of TCF pending a new hearing, which was to be held
during the end of September, 2000.  The CSL did not order the hearing on factual
grounds; rather they were concerned that the TCUJ might not have acted in accordance
with University policy in making their decision.
Students returned to campus during the fall and became increasingly aware of the
upcoming hearing and its ramifications for the student body.  The TCF cranked up their
media campaign and submitted articles to the daily and the observer pitting themselves as
the oppressed minority.  Furthermore, letters, phone calls, and e-mails continued to pour
in as conservative Christian web-sights and radio shows picked up the story.  At the trial,
TCF was allowed to have legal counsel represent them, while Julie went at it pretty much
alone.  With a high priced lawyer, provided by InterVarsity, up against a college senior in
an attempt to convince half a dozen 18-20 year olds in a matter of legalese, the winner
was determined even before the trial took place.
Outside the hearing, which started at around five and continued until about 4:30
in the morning, a large group gathered to hold vigil in support of Julie.  The vigil was
organized by the Tufts Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Collective (TTLGBC) with
some help from the Tufts Coalition for Social Justice and Non-Violence.  Over 50
students participated at one time or another and Lou, Doug, and Adam braved the cold
and stuck it out until the end.  As the hearing let out, one of the TCUJ members took
Adam aside and confidentially told him the result of the ruling.  Dismayed, but not
shocked, Adam returned to his room for the night.
The next day, 24 hours before the ruling was released to the public, Adam, Roger,
Rachel and Lou met in the Arts house to discuss the ramifications of the TCUJ’s
decision.  The decision itself had its own inherent problems that were separate from their
failure to condemn TCF.  The TCF lawyer argued that they did not discriminate based on
Julie’s sexual orientation, but rather because she accepted her sexual orientation.  This
hair-splitting decision created a whole slew of problems because now a big gaping
loop-hole had been set up in the policy that would allow for student-funded hate groups
to simply re-word their message and become Tufts Community Union Senate (TCUS)
recognized groups.
What made matters worse is they sent the TCF back to the constitutional drawing
boards after explaining to them that discrimination based upon self-acceptance is okay;
however, discrimination against one’s identity is not acceptable.  The TCUJ basically
asked them to take the new loophole into account when rewriting their constitution.  It
would have been perfectly acceptable for them to include in their new constitution lines
like “only queers who hate themselves can be leaders in our group” or “you can only be a
leader in the TCF if you hate homosexuals and think that being gay is morally wrong and
a sin.” The progressive community on campus, as well as the queer community, became
very frustrated by this ruling. Once it was released on the following Monday, two
emergency meetings were planned: the first took place at 9:00 during the regular
TTLGBC meeting and the second took place in Oxfam Cafe at around 10:30.
 No one could sit still at the TTLGBC (Tufts Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
Collective) meeting-the overwhelming emotions were making us all fidgety.  You could
see the pain, frustration, fear, and anger in milling within everyone.  There was an
obvious split between the queer community and the activists who attended the meeting
(for many of them it was their first TTLGBC meeting).  The queer community was
pessimistic.  They asserted that it was a gay issue and, just like every other time, no one
except for them would care.  The activists were determined to fix the problem.  I know
that personally, I had not considered the larger issue of homophobia, but rather focussed
simply on the non-discrimination policy and I did my best in order to assure the queer
community that we would win.  A TCUJ member began the meeting by doing his best to
explain the decision to us.  When he finished, people began to argue with him. Tempers
flared and it was hard to keep the discussion from becoming a shouting match.  The
TCUJ member had pain in his eyes as his nerves crumbled.  As he left, a member of the
queer community pronounced “Now you know what we feel like every moment of our
lives.”  It was then that I realized the gravity of this issue and I became more determined
than ever to win this campaign to get a non-discrimination policy that protects all Tufts
students.
 After the meeting, most of us marched to Oxfam Cafe and the student coalition to
combat this issue was formed.  We called ourselves Tufts Students Against
Discrimination (TSAD).  The tone of this meeting was drastically different from the
TTLGBC meeting.  Many of us had gotten out our frustration and we began to plan a
course of action.  The split between the activist community and the queer community
was never more obvious than at this meeting.  While that activists shouted out ideas
ranging from building takeovers to campaigns designed to reduce applications, the vast
majority of the queer community remained almost silent, sometimes offering suggestions
more in line with letter writing and institutionalized forms of protest.  The one thing that
we were able to accomplish was the creation of a list-serve that allowed anyone to
receive updates on what TSAD was doing and how the campaign was going.  This list
was open to anyone.
There was a meeting at the LGBT center the next day and a small faculty
coalition joined TSAD in its second day of planning.  At this meeting Roger and Adam
pushed hard for direct action.  Since; however, there were many people who had never
participated in any kind of protest and many more that wanted to seek institutionalized
means to reach our desired goal, this idea was put on hold. Through consensus, we
decided to hold a rally and march the following Monday.  We pictured the rally as a
massive gathering that would allow students and faculty to vent their frustration.  It
would also serve as a tool to show our collective force; enabling us to speak with one
voice and demand a non-discrimination policy that functioned to protect all students.
At the end of the meeting, we decided to begin a letter signing campaign.  This
would serve both as an opportunity to educate the community (they would have to read
the letter before they signed it) but also as a way to show that TSAD had broad-based
student support from around campus.
 We had a plan, now we just needed to solve a myriad of logistical problems-and
we only had 6 days to do it in.  We had two immediate concerns.  First of all, we had to
get massive amounts of form letters printed on little-to-no budget, while at the same time
mobilizing an apathetic campus that rarely leaves their rooms for anything other than to
go clubbing.  Education became the key because only informed students would be willing
to attend a rally.  We used the freshly photocopied letters (care of the senate copy
machine) as a prop in our educational campaign.  We approached friends and strangers
alike during meals and classes as well as around campus, and even at parties.  After
explaining the case to them and getting them to sign a letter, we proceeded to remind
them about the rally that was scheduled to take place on the library roof at 3:30 on the
following Monday.  The conversations looked something like this:
“Hey would you be interested in signing a letter to reaffirm our
Non-discrimination Policy?”
“Yeah, what’s the problem?”
“Well, in the recent TCUJ decision, the J separated identity from acceptance of
oneself.  This means that a club could be formed that allows only for self-hating Jews to
be leaders.  If you were a Jew, and you thought that being Jewish was all right, you could
be discriminated against.”
“Can I read over the letter?”
“Yeah, sure.”
“Oh, on Monday there is going to be a big, fun rally on the library roof at 3:30pm.
You should be there.  It’s going to be awesome.”
“All right I’ll try to make it.”
“Cool, have a good day.”

TSAD received some sensationalized press in The Daily around this time that
really painted us a fanatical.  This, coupled with the negative press we had been getting
from the conservatives and homophobes that abound on this campus, really hurt our
spirits.  We had been working extremely hard on a campaign that we saw as only having
benefits for an inclusive, accepting society and now we were forced to work against both
the campus media and the administration.  This extra burden; however, proved to be
ephemeral and we put The Daily article behind us and focussed on the upcoming rally.
Our next meeting took place on that Thursday at Oxfam Cafe.  By this time we
were visibly tired.  People had been getting letters signed rather than sleeping.  The issue
itself had kept many TSAD members from being able to sleep at night.  Here we planned
the logistics for the rally itself.  Lou and Cat planned to meet off campus activists at
Davis Square at 2:50 and march with them towards the library roof.  A drum circle would
begin at 3:10 and, once everyone had gathered, Cat, Thea, and two professors would
speak to the group assembled on the roof.  Then, in a unified show of strength, we would
walk around the academic quad, encircle Ballou Hall, and then finally march in and hand
the president the letters that we had amassed.  The meeting closed with the realization
that banners and posters had to be made for the rally and we wold need to hang flyers
around campus, supplemented by chalkings that would remind people to attend the rally.
Over the next few days the real preparations began.  We sent out e-mails to
almost every group on campus explaining the situation to them and urging them to attend
the rally.  We attending the meetings of different culture groups in order to broaden our
coalition and explain the situation to them as well.  Flyers were made and before long the
campus was littered with hundreds of sheets of pink, orange, and blue paper urging
everyone to attend the rally.  It was here that we came face to face with the first signs of
backlash from the university’s conservative and homophobic population.  Many of the
fliers were torn down.  An on campus web-site was filled with homophobic and
anti-TSAD comments.  Some even urged that we be punished for postering in an illegal
way (TSAD is not a recognized group and therefor is not allowed to poster).  We brushed
this off and kept preparing for the big day that was now only 100 short hours away.
That Sunday, we had our last meeting before the rally and spirits were back up
again.  We had made several dozen posters and a few TSAD members had turned two
large window shades into giant banners.  We organized a door to door, dorm to dorm,
campaign in order to collect more signatures and remind the student body about the rally
on Monday.  After the meeting, we chalked the entire campus and painted the canon.  It
seemed to be all coming together.
When we went to bed that evening, the entire campus was filled with
anti-discrimination slogans and reminders of the next day’s rally and march.
Furthermore, a large ad was placed in the daily for that morning reminding students yet
again to attend the rally.  The ad served as an interesting point of discussion.  It cost
about $200 to print and we had no financial backing.  The Tufts Coalition for Social
Justice and Non-Violence was more than willing to finance the ad.  Unfortunately, doing
so would implicate them as responsible for the rally.  Since the rally was in violation of
Tufts policy, both for noise violations and lack of police detail, the group decided that it
was better to take the money out of our pockets, rather than implicate a supportive group
and risk repercussions.
I arrived at the rally site at around one and began to set up.  The large banners
were hung over the sides of the roof and the inside walls were covered with the three
dozen posterboard sized signs that we had made at the LGBT center.  So far, all of the
materials we had used had been financed out of our own pockets, since we had no
funding for TSAD.  This added to our feeling of community, but also put an extra strain
on the movement.  One does not realize exactly how many details go into planning even
something as simple as a rally until they try and do it.  The process had been both
financially and emotionally draining, not to mention physically exhausting.  All of this
work added even more pressure to the situation as I began to wonder if people would
actually show up.
I watched people in TSAD become engulfed by cynicism, but many of us still
tried to remain optimistic.  We hoped that the energy we created could pull the group
back to idealism, and finally create a chain reaction where our positive energy would
influence others.  We had organized as best as we possibly could.  It was now a matter of
whether or not the campus would respond.
 People began to trickle in, slowly at first, and then in waves as if no one wanted
to be first, but everyone wanted to be there. One of our goals had been actualized!
Energy rushed back into the group and we were ready to conquer the world.  With around
550 people amassed on the roof, the tension mounted as the group from Davis had yet to
arrive-and they had our megaphone.  A few of us did our best to entertain the massive
gathering on the roof with chants and drums.  Finally, we heard them making their way
across campus.  Megaphone in hand, Cat led the charge with a rousing rendition of “ain’t
no power like the power of the people ‘cause the power of the people don’t stop.”  One
of the largest rallies in the history of Tufts University had begun. We were loud, we were
unhappy with the state of the non-discrimination policy, and we were ready to make a
difference.
The members of TSAD present at the rally were simply overcome with a sense of
euphoria.  After the speeches were made, the “apathetic” masses ignored their title, at
least for one afternoon, and showed that the non-discrimination policy is a serious issue.
Marching across the academic quad were members of almost every student group,
including the TCUJ, the Pan-African Alliance (PAA), the Association of Latin American
Students (ALAS), Hillel, the Asian Community at Tufts (ACT), the TCUS, the CSL, the
Tufts Democrats, the Cultural Coordinating Committee (CCC), and many others.  We
walked in unison, singing songs, with over 1,300 letters in hand.  We had accomplished a
crucial goal: we managed to network with other organizations and minorities: we made
this more than just a “gay” issue.  Our organizing strategy was a success.  We marched to
Ballou Hall, surrounded it, and delivered the letters we had acquired in the past 6 days.
After the march some of the other rally organizers and I went back to Ballou Hall to
deliver a letter drafted by TSAD to the president addressing our demands.  He was
scared.  Very scared.  We had won the day.
 The crux of our demands was that the president address the issue by publishing a
letter to the community that stated, in unambiguous language, that the non-discrimination
policy protected students from being discriminated against based on self-acceptance.
Our letter, unfortunately, was not very clear, nor did it have a date attached to it.  At that
point the ball was in the president’s court.  We had to wait until he made his next move,
which meant that we finally had a few days to rest.
That Friday we had a meeting with the president.  It was in the planning stages of
this meeting that a chasm was created that would run through the rest of the movement.
Our email list was open to the public; administrators and anti-TSAD members were on
the list and they were even showing up to meetings.  Also, information posted to the
email group would appear on a web-sight that posted Tufts related rumors.  For these
reasons we didn’t want to post any confidential information, or information that the
general public could not know about.  As a result, another email list was formed in order
to discuss what to do during the meeting with the president.  An inner-circle was formed.
No longer was the dissemination of information democratized and a system of have and
have-nots was created, accidentally of course, within TSAD.  Those on the list knew
everything that was going on and those who were not on the list were left partially in the
dark and had to attend the weekly update meetings in Oxfam to catch themselves up.  I
personally was not on the e-mail list; however, I took it a lot lighter than many of the
TSADers.  Some even left the organization because of this.
At the meeting, due to poor negotiation, our demands were compromised.  Those
that met with the president had basically decided to go along with the system designed to
handle such complaints at Tufts. The meeting was not mentioned to the TSAD email
group and a decision was made without all of the members of TSAD.  We had broken our
own rules and we suffered because of it.  We no longer had any kind of deadline by
which the administration had to act and so they were able to keep delaying any public
statement.
 During the following Sunday’s meeting, we began to restructure the campaign by
creating a four-pronged approach that included education of students, dealing with the
CSL, adding the non-discrimination policy and a protection for self-acceptance into the
Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate constitution, and dealing with issues concerning
the administration.  Our new campaign allowed us to use many leverage points from
which to attack this problem.  Also, it enabled people to have more freedom within the
group.  People no longer had to commit to every part of the campaign.  Also this
separation of methods allowed us to be “nice” for some methods and “tough” for others.
 The next couple of weeks went fairly quickly and can be broken up into three
sections including, the hanging of banners, campus education, and planning for what
became our final method of constraint-a takeover of the office of undergraduate
admissions (Bendetson Hall).
We felt that a building occupation was the only way to win the campaign.  Since
president DiBiaggio was unwilling to meet with us in any kind of in good faith and
productive way, we realized that we needed to force him to meet with us.  In order to do
that we had to take something away from him that the University needed.  Our goal was
to do this without hurting the university or inconveniencing the student body.  The office
of admissions was therefor a perfect target, especially at this time or year because early
decisions were being processed.  The university needed daily free access to the building
in order to run tours, answer calls, and make decisions on early applications.  The student
body, however, unless they served as tour guides, never even sets foot in the building.
Furthermore, its small size and minimal number of entrances make it an easy target.
 After the meeting with the president, we realized that we needed to keep the
pressure on him.  A letter had been released to the student body that was an obvious
attempt to pacify the masses that were organizing against him.  The president’s message
was more insulting that it was pacifying as he failed to touch on any of the important
issues, not to mention creating a provision that would protect students against
discrimination against one’s identity.  Over the next few days banners were hung on the
academic quad, facing the administration building (Ballou Hall).  The first set of banners
was hung previous to the president’s statement and they urged him to  “reaffirm the
policy.”  The second set was hung after his disgraceful e-mail and they read “thanks for
the e-mail, now where is our policy.”  While these banners were hanging in the quad,
members of TSAD handed out fact sheets to everyone, including faculty and staff, who
walked by.  The fact sheets explained the situation and urged people to get involve with
the fight for a functioning non-discrimination policy.
 The majority of students on campus embraced this method of constraint.  It was
seen as far less of an attack than our rally had been viewed.  Furthermore, the strong
educational component gave us a wonderful opportunity to explain what was going on to
the students who still had no idea.  In fact, it was through one of these interactions that
two of the TSADers that took part in the sit-in learned about what was going on.  The
banners also provided a pretty stress free way for us to keep the pressure on the
administration, while keeping the student body informed at the same time.  The
administration didn’t want pre-frosh to continually pass banners that painted Tufts
University as an unsafe place to study.  Furthermore, the students passed by us every day
on their way to class.  All and all, this was one of the most successful education/pressure
campaigns that I have ever witnessed.

 The campus education campaign, already gaining strength from the banner hangs,
took a new approach during the last few days before the building occupation.  A large,
double-sided information sheet was created that included TSAD’s goals, our
accomplishments, and how students could get involved with the campaign.  This sheet
was distributed to every student who lived on campus as TSAD members went to every
dorm and specialty house in order to slip the flier under student’s doors.  On top of this,
TSAD members stood in high traffic areas around campus, including the campus center
and dinning halls, in order to hand out the flyer to people who passed by.  We also sent in
numerous letters to the editor of The Daily, as well as had a Viewpoint published in the
paper’s Op Ed section.
 On November 2, 2000, we had reissued our demands to the president.  We clearly
stated that, by November 27, 2000, he had to release a statement to the general Tufts
population that clearly stated that the non-discrimination policy protects students from
discrimination based on one’s acceptance of their identity.  After handing the president
our demands, we set up a meeting with him that would take place on Wednesday,
November 22nd.
 The most difficult planning and actions; however, were those surrounding the
preparations and execution of the sit-in.  It still felt like the activists were pulling the
queer community towards an action that they were not quite ready for, but as the
planning progressed people became more an more comfortable with the group as well as
with the plan.
The first step was to get a working list of people who would be "down" with the
action so that we could contact one another in a safe way.  This kept us from having our
plans being compromised, as our previous e-mail list had been.  We began holding “super
secret” meetings once a week (generally on Thursdays) to supplement the regular Sunday
meetings that were still concentrating on working with the CSL and the TCUS.
The number of people present at these meetings ranged from 10 to 20 and that
became our primary concern.  We needed to make sure that we had at least 20 people
willing to take part in the action in order to ensure its success.  The problem became
recruiting people without letting our secret out because it would be the element of
surprise that would act as our deadliest weapon.
Our meetings turned into both planning sessions and solidarity building exercises.
At one meeting we all took small stones and wrote a word on them that represented what
we had to offer the group (I wrote energy) and we placed them on the table in front of us.
At the end of the meeting, we all took a stone that had on it something we need (I left
with protection).  This activity symbolically unified the group and prepared us for the
hard work that lay ahead.  There were still; however, some doubts within the group.
Many people had never taken part in any kind of direct action before and there were
others who had once been vocal supporters and now were discouraging this action and
even speaking out against it.  It took a lot of strength for the group to be able to work
through all of these outside influences, but we remained strong.
I made contact with the other universities from across the nation, namely
Wesleyan University, Ohio State University, and the University of Pennsylvania, who had
done similar actions during the past 18 months in order to ascertain how they were
successful and where they thought they could improve.  Their information proved to be
extremely helpful.  They shared information that could come from experience.  This
included making sure that someone remained on guard in each of the bathrooms, how the
administration might use scare tactics and bluffs in order to get us out of the building
before we were able to accomplish our goals, negotiation tactics, as well logistical
information about things that we should bring.  We also contacted the group of faculty
who was working on the issue.  At this time there were around 20 to 30 of them and we
asked them for support.  In response, they drafted a letter to the president urging him to
meet our demands and reaffirm the non-discrimination policy.  This added pressure on
the administration and this added much-needed support and enabled the group to get over
the hill between anxiety and empowerment.
As we departed for thanksgiving we learned that the meeting with president
DiBiaggio did not go well.  His quote was “I don’t respond to demands.”  We left for
Thanksgiving knowing that when we returned we had 36 hours in which to completely
prepare for what many people saw as both the scariest and most empowering action of
their lives.
The break also brought with it some good news.  That Wednesday, the Boston
Phoenix had a front-page article, complete with three pictures, all about TSAD’s
struggle.  This was our first piece of positive strength and it served as a catalyst for
sparking energy within the group.  The reporter who had written the story had been
following us around for a few days and a separate photographer was given access to our
meetings and banner hangs.
We split off into two groups.  The twenty or so of us that were planning on
occupying the building used the Thanksgiving break as a time to mentally prepare for the
action.  The handful of people who had pledged round-the-clock support from the
outside-both media relations, public outreach, and running errands for those inside the
building-used this time to get started on their press packet and psych themselves up for
the difficult road ahead.  At this point, our plan was to enter Bendetson Hall when the
custodian entered-around 4 a.m.-and, once we were safely inside, put down all of our
gear and chain the doors shut from the inside.  Once safely inside with the doors locked,
we planned to tape our non-violence pledge to the windows, hang our banners from the
balcony, take a deep breath and notify the media.
The Sunday we returned was our next group meeting and it was here that we had
to get all of the final planning done.  We had learned that if we occupied the building in a
sit-in fashion our punishment would be reduced.  Furthermore, we believed that by not
locking the doors we would be seen as less radical and more open.  Finally, by keeping
the doors open, it prevented the administration from simply calling the fire department
and having them remove us for a fire hazard violation.  The main reason that we were
unable to lock the doors; however, was numbers.  If we had 50, or even 30, students
willing to take part in the occupation, locking the doors would have been feasible.
However, with only 20 students, we realized that other means had to be entertained.  As a
result, we decided to march into the building at 9:00 in the morning, thirty minutes before
the first tour, and carry out the rest of the action as planned (except of course for locking
the doors).  This change also made a lot of people feel more comfortable with the action.
It was like a collective sigh of relief swept across the group.  As Thea put it, “we were
not wrong in planning to lock the doors, but now we are right in keeping the doors
unlocked.”  There were 20 of us and we were going to take a stand.  That night we left
feeling comfortable, yet a little scared.  Before going to bed, we delivered the last stack
of flyers to the dorms and prepared to meet again starting at around 6 p.m. the following
day.
At 6 p.m. that Monday, I moseyed over to 302 Boston Ave. apt. 3 and helped turn
the place into a command center of sorts.  A great deal still had to be done and there were
only about 15 hours left to do it in.  One by one people came by and dropped off food and
their backpack full of supplies.  A to do list was made and people began frantically
crossing off things that had been accomplished.  Julie showed up with about $300 worth
of food.  Lou and I purchased $200 worth at Jumbo express and we had enough food to
last us a week.  At about 7:30 there were 12 people in the apartment all working
fervently.  It wasn’t until about 3 a.m. that almost everything was finished.  We had
baked cookies to accompany the letter we planned to hand out to the employees of the
admissions building.  We had photocopies our non-violence pledge.  The press packets
were almost complete. We were exhausted, but ready for the next day.  Before leaving,
we loading up a few of the cars with the food and transported it up the hill to Oxfam
Cafe.  We scheduled the meeting for 7 a.m. the following morning, giving us a good 3
hours of sleep to take advantage of.
The next morning we met at 302 Boston Avenue and slowly began transporting
the rest of the supplies up to Oxfam.  This all had to be done by car in order to create as
little suspicion as possible.  We assigned tasks for people to complete once they entered
the building.  These including guarding the bathrooms, handing out cookies, watching the
doors, making a lot of noise, and hanging the banners.  We were all exhausted as the last
one of us trickled into Oxfam Cafe that morning, but we had accomplished a great deal.
When we later overheard the police lament that they “[didn’t] know what to do because
[we were] too organized,” we would look back on this moment of exhaustion and know
that it was all worth it.  At 8:30 we sent a sentry out to do some reconnaissance around
the building and make sure that there was not a police contingent standing guard.  When
she returned with a smile on his face we began to prepare.
At 8:45 we collected all of our things.  Our food, clothing, stereos, pots, pans, medical
kit, fact sheets, banners, and empty containers for water were piled high as we began to
march from Miller Hall (where Oxfam Cafe is located) to the admissions building.  The
progression was slow at first, and quiet as we did not seem to have the energy yet.  But,
as we neared the building the adrenaline began to pump and we began to shout, “ain’t no
power like the power of the people because the power of the people don’t stop.”  As we
opened the first set of double doors that served as the only barrier between us and the
lobby of the admissions building, we noticed that a young man was standing in the
second set of doors and attempting to block our entrance.  Liz and Adam took the lead as
the rest of the group, chanting louder now, continued to force there way into the foyer
area until finally Adam was able to pry their advisary's hands from the door frame and the
group marched in victoriously.